3 Limitations of Science
Posted on September 08, 2020 by Andrew Bazakis, One of Thousands of Life Coaches on Noomii.
The scientific method is a powerful tool for describing and even understanding the universe. Like any tool, it has its limitations.
The History of the Scientific Method.
The scientific method, while popularized in western Europe from the 17th century onward, has been by some has its origins attributed to Aristotle some almost two millennia prior. This method of acquiring knowledge is based on rational deduction after an attempt to empirically observe in the most objective manner possible the phenomena of nature. Many have over time described logic and the ability to reason as one of, if not the highest, of the functions of the human brain. If we think of logical deduction – and science as its natural offspring – we recognize easily the existence of a very powerful tool for understanding the world around us. One must also consider that no tool is best suited for every single task; all tools have their limits and would be flawed to some tasks. Even science has its limits.
In the 14th century, Dante Alighieri penned a series of three works comprising his epic poem The Divine Comedy. Read and even studied to this day, one of the well-known features of this poem is the author’s being guided during the first part of his journey into the afterlife by the ancient Roman philosopher Virgil. At some point, however, Virgil must take a leave of him as the author travels further into the planes of paradise, turned over to the guidance of others, St. Bernard and a woman by the name of Beatrice. This transition represents a recognition that the finite human mind’s ability to reason can been surpassed.
The Presumption of an Absolute Truth.
The point of science is to observe, describe that sometimes even predict the phenomena that occur throughout the universe. This is only with the presumption that an absolute and objective reality does exist which is in fact observable and those observations are able to be shared and even reproduced from one observer to the next. Even with the presumptions of what we understand about the psychology of perception, that events observed from one person to the next can appear quite varied, there is a presumption that there is some objective event that can eventually be deduced. In the legal system of most cultures for example, laws of evidence rely heavily upon this presumption.
The Scientist as an Every-Day Gambler
When a student studies statistics, arguably the mathematical language of science, one of the first things the student learns is that in describing probabilities, events can be either very likely were very unlikely but never predicted with 100% certainty. The reality in retrospect is that events either did occur or did not. In other words, events occur at a rate of either zero or 100%, although our ability to predict these or sometimes even describe them at all is always somewhere in between. In that, when trying to describe theories, and perfect as they are, to describe the behavior of the universe and the actions of nature and all the creatures in it, the scientist takes somewhat of a gamble based on these estimated probabilities. In this he has faith in the likelihood of the predictions. She also understands that even an extreme likelihood or unlikelihood cannot represent an absolute certainty. Anyone who has gambled at a casino has been likely made very aware of this mathematical truth in a very concrete way.
Understanding the Question Before Understanding the Answer.
The types of questions of the scientific method is designed to answer are quite particular. The question of what happened or what will happen, when it happened or most commonly how things happen, that is a look at mechanism, are in within the scope of science’s discovery.
There is a common error, however, to confuse the question of “how” with the question of “why”. If we see “why” as a question of mechanism, disregarding any sense of reason or purpose, this is simply a restating of the question of “how”. The one thing that the logical paradigm of the scientific method falls short on is the question of “why”, that is the greater purpose of the observed phemonena. We can describe how a flower grows, when it grows and describe the flower that we see. We can describe the factors that can be predicted to effect its growth and life cycle. The purpose for which that flower exists though, unless we employ some type of circular logic, falls outside the realm of the scientific method and toward other philosophies of meaning. To say the philosophies of meaning is not to dismiss logical deduction altogether of course, but these reach speculations rest outside the realm of objective logical deduction alone. Should we make the presumption that the only purpose of anything in nature is what we can objectively see and there is nothing further, within them and ourselves, presents a view of the universe which is essentially materialistic and ultimately nihilistic, devoid of any sense of meaning. What a sad world that would be.
